CIT v. AT & T Communications Services India Pvt. Ltd.

342 ITR 257High Court#14058 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. AT & T Communications Services India Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Marksans Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7278/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S Marksans Pharma Room No.216-A, Limited, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Vs. M.K. Road, Desai, Extension Road, Mumbai-400020 Andehri (West), Mumbai-400053 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaact3153G C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7278/Mum/2016 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Marksans Pharma Dcit-10(2)(2), Limited, Room No.216-A, बनाम/ 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Desai, Extension Road, M.K. Road, Andehri (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6057A

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

…reach flows from a bon-fide belief that offender is not liable to act in a manner prescribed by a statute’. The case of the assessee further find support from the decision from Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AT & T Communications Services Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 257 (Del.), wherein it was held that invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for making the disallowance should not be a ground for levy of penalty. Identical ratio was laid down in ITA No.7278/Mum/2016 & 16 C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 M/s Marksans Pharma Ltd.. New Horizon India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 322 (Del.), Mumbai Bench of the Tribuna…

Montana Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6577/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Montana Infrastructure Acit, Ltd., Central Circle-6(3), 19Th Floor, 507, Vyapar Bhavan, Vs. 49, P. D’Mello Road, Air India Building, Carnac Bunder, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 009 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aabcm4495K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri S.K. Mutsaddi, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mutsaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

…ot claimed in the subsequent return, hence it does not attract the penalty. The Ld. A.R. submitted that no penalty can be levied and he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AT & T Communications Services India Pvt. Ltd. -342 ITR 257, Gujarat High Court in Sachinam Trust - 21 DTR 1 (Guj.), and he also relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Rajiv Garg & Others – 313 ITR 256. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.…

Dciut Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Remi Metals (Gujarat) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5254/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.5254/Mum/2015 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income M/S Remi Metals (Gujarat) Ltd, 4Th Floor, Welspun House, Tax-Central Circle 3(3), Room No.401, Kamala City, फनाभ/ 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018

For Appellant: Shri Purishottam KumarFor Respondent: none

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 40

…al in the case of Rushi Builders and Developers in ITA No.6684/Mum/2012 for the 3 I.T.A. No.5254/Mum/2015 assessment year 2007-08, dated 4.3.2014 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd(342 ITR 257) (Delhi). 4. We have carefully considered the contentions of the ld. DR and perused the material placed before us including the impugned order. The undisputed facts of the case are that the addition/disallowance was made in the assessment proceedings for non deduction of TDS which was sustained by the CIT(A). In our opinion disallowance/addition…

The Mantola Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 204/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P.Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaithe Mantola Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward 38(4), Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi 541, Mantola Pahae Ganj, New Delhi Gir / Pan :Aaajt1976A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesd Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

…be levied on bona fides wrong claims. Some of the judgments plays in the paper book by the Ld. AI are as under: a) Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 124 ITR 15 (SC); b) CIT vs. AT & T communication service India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 342 ITR 257 (Del); c) CIT vs. Societex reported in 259 CTR 325 (Del); d) CIT vs. Tudor Knitting works Pvt. Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 236 (P&H); On the contrary the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that assessee had wrongly claimed deduction under section 80 P of the Act and therefore the assessing officer was justif…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…of earning of income- rather it is a case where year of taxability of income was in dispute. AO and the assessee had different opinions about the year in which same should be taxed. In our opinion, in. such matters penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) cannot be levied". 342 ITR 257, CIT us. AT & T Communication Services India P. Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.), in which the High Court held that cancellation of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) was justified. Relevant portion from head notes is reproduced below: "That the question was whether the assessee could claim deduction of the amount paid in the assessment year 2001-02 or in…

M/S. Goodluck Commercials Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6125/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishigoodluck Commercials Ltd, Vs. Ito, 211, Basal Plaza, 2122, Ward-12(2), Bhadurgarh Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg4081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri OP Modi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Simran Bhullar, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40a

…008-09 wherein, the assessee made proper disclosure and expenditure was neither held to be bogus or not disallowable but for non-deduction of tax, penalty cannot be levied. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. AT&T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd 342 ITR 257 has held that levy of penalty merely on disallowance u/s 40a(i) in case of payment made to nonresident cannot be levied. Furthermore, now it is merely a postponement of deductibility Goodluck Commercials Ltd Vs. ITO, of an expenditure from the year of non-deduction to the year in which the tax is deducted. Further, the other contentions raised b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Project Construction & Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 6014/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 44A

…planations were offered before the authorities below. He, therefore, urged for sustenance of impugned order of ld. CIT(A), deleting the penalty imposed. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. AT & T Communication services India (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 257 (Del.). (ii). CIT vs. Dahyabhai Veljibhai Patel (ITA No. 793 of 2013) Gujrate High Court. (iii). ACIT vs. M.V. International Ltd.(ITA No. 1451/Kol/2012) ITAT Kolkata Bench. (iv). Ramkrishna Shetty vs. ACIT(2013) 38 CCH 20-ITAT Mumbai Bench. (v). ACIT vs. Seaways Shipping Limited (ITA No. 80/H/2011) ITAT, Hyd. Bench. (vi). ACIT vs. Medversity Onli…